Oh no you didn’t: Warner hits Lessig vid with DMCA takedown

Lawrence Lessig, the well-known legal scholar and copyright reform advocate who founded Creative Commons, was surprised to discover that Warner Music issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice against one of his presentations on YouTube.

Lessig, who is a leading expert on the legal principle of fair use and an outspoken critic of DMCA abuse, intends to fight the takedown notice. Warner Music just flunked out of common sense 101 and is about to get some unpleasant remedial schooling from the irate professor.

The growing volume of infringing content on YouTube has made it a major target for DMCA takedown notices. Unfortunately, the content producers that are flooding the site with takedowns are rarely taking adequate steps to ensure the validity of their claims and are indiscriminately targeting videos that fall within the boundaries of fair use.

In some cases, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other organizations have stepped in and filed lawsuits against takedown abusers in an effort to protect fair use. Such efforts are time-consuming and often fraught with difficulty. It's pretty clear that the content companies aren't really getting the message, as their claims continue to descend into increasingly ludicrous territory.

Big content believes that it should be permissible to issue takedowns whenever it wants, regardless of whether the content is fair use, and that there should be no consequences or liability for doing so, even when the basis for the takedown is clearly bogus.

Lessig is strongly committed to educating the public, lawmakers, and the content industry about the importance of protecting fair use from DMCA abuses, so it seems likely that he will take advantage of Warner's mistake to raise awareness of the issue. The fact that the notice was issued at all serves as yet another reminder of how easily the barrage of poorly considered DMCA takedowns can hit innocent bystanders.

27 Reader Comments

The Warner Music Group campaign is a symptom of a broken copyright system, created and perpetuated by a government that no longer supports fair use, limited protection for intellectual property, or the eventual movement of intellectual property to the public domain.

I make my living creating intellectual property. I believe that it is appropriate that I have an opportunity to benefit from sales or use of that property for a limited period of time. BUT, I also support fair use and I strongly believe that all intellectual property should revert to the public domain after a limited period of protection.

Personally, I prefer a strict limit on copy right protection--I believe that 20 years after initial publication (or perhaps creation) is more than enough protection. Twenty years after publication, everything should revert to the public domain--no extensions, no ifs, no excuses.

We will know we are on the right path when Mickey Mouse finally enters the public domain.

Ideally copyrights and patents would both expire within about 15-20 years. I wanted to add something that helps to explain why this is more important now than ever though:

The rate of technological progress we have managed in the 21st century is nothing short of astounding. This progress has been built mostly on a culture of sharing and openness on the Internet. Going beyond this though, we now live in a culture where information is old days after it is released. We can get a new product to market and sell it within a year. This means that it does not take many many years to get a profit back on an idea or a technology, as it once did. The end result of this is a company or individual can make a profit that justifies the development of IP in a very short time-frame, indeed 20 years almost sounds too long.

The result of this is that large copyright terms have the exact opposite of the original intended effect: they actually hurt innovation. Its important to realize that copyright does not exists to protect copyright owners, it exists to stimulate innovation by making sure there is some profit from it. Once this profit is realized, it actually begins to hurt innovation by not allowing the sharing of ideas and technologies.

What this actually ends up meaning, is that patent reform will help business in general, not hurt it. Companies that have large existing portfolios will be hurt, but only if they cannot innovate anymore. Smaller innovative businesses will be able to make money off their inventions in the short term, with the knowledge that they must continue to innovate to survive.

In conclusion, the current copyright situation benefits only those who have large IP portfolios that they want to use to badger other businesses in the court of law. It does not benefit smaller business, it does not benefit individuals and it does not benefit innovation.

I've said for a while that, in terms of the economic efficiency argument, I'd rather err on copyright terms being too short than being too long. It would be preferable in the long run for companies to have to appeal to explain why they have not extracted fair economic returns off of their creation yet to a copyright board than for creators of new goods and ideas to run into troubles due to something lost to the winds of time.

I must agree with the sentiment of the article's author; what the heck were they thinking in targeting Lessig? I mean, you might as well go urinate on a police officer, or put simply, them's fightin words.

Originally posted by rays username:Where in the article does it state WHY Warner did this? I'm fine with Ars opinion, but Jebus, tell me fucking why they did it before you start ranting.

Lessig's lectures often contain examples of fair-use mashups. The article writer probably can't tell you exactly what the takedown reason was, because until the clip goes back up, there's probably not an online version of it to take a look at.

Originally posted by Alfonse:I know. The article completely ignores the question of what it is that was claimed to be infringed. It just jumps to the conclusion that the DCMA takedown claim is 100% bogus and enters rant mode.

And you're completely ignoring the main story. What is much, much, much less important than who. Read the first sentence: "Lawrence Lessig, the well-known legal scholar and copyright reform advocate [...]".

Also, Mickey Mouse is also a trademark, so his likeness works under a set of different rules.

Lessig is an egotistical hypocrite. His "Creative Commons" organization makes a big deal about the importance of copyright and the ability of artists to reserve certain rights in their work. But when HE copies someone else's work without permission, that's magically OK, because he's Larry Lessig.

Originally posted by Brett Glass:Lessig is an egotistical hypocrite. His "Creative Commons" organization makes a big deal about the importance of copyright and the ability of artists to reserve certain rights in their work. But when HE copies someone else's work without permission, that's magically OK, because he's Larry Lessig.

Brett,

Lessig is a believer in the endangered right of fair use. If you watch the "offending" video, which is about an hour long, you'll notice that there really isn't anything in there that should have prompted Universal to demand its removal. Watch it for yourself and see if you agree. AlizarinCrimson provided the link above.

He does believe in the importance of copyright. He reiterates that every chance he gets. But there needs to be a balance between copyright and the ability of the public to fairly use copyrighted content. Right now the internet, the digital structure of which necessitates copying in every single action we take, is hobbled by the blurring of fair use. It's gotten to the point that we can't even comment on our own culture without the fear of a DMCA reprisal.

We can't maintain this digital tight-rope walk. Something needs to change soon or we'll all be litigated into oblivion. Either that or the law will be increasingly ignored, which should trouble us all. Either possibility would set a bad precedent for the future of a healthy Internet culture. Lessig mentions some alternatives to the current copyright morass. He may not have all the answers, but at least he's looking for a way forward.

I agree with all of you who say copyright should be limited to some 20 years.

Unfortunately - and despite all reason, including a study made at the request of the EC Commission which concluded that copyright should *not* be extended - we have just seen a 20-year increase for music copyright. If I'm not mistaken, this now means that music is protected for the life of the author + 70 years!!!! How can this be justified, especially when you see some artists being paid their own weight in gold and others struggle to extract a paltry royalty from labels??

This is of course the result of free market - if you sell 1 million records worldwide in a couple of weeks, you can make your label bend over... But we've seen what free unregulated markets do in the financial system, right? I'm not a commie or anything but I strongly feel that there is a *huge* overall problem of distribution of wealth in the economy, and the contents industry is a paradigm of that problem.

To those companies: cut the superstars' royalties, up the royalties for other artists. Ditch the ludicrous DRM technologies. Start seriously exploring other distribution channels - vinyl and cassette didn't last forever, why should the CD? Start treating clients with respect. And most importantly, realize that a business is not supposed to give you the profits you WANT, but the profits you DESERVE in your clients' view.

This will be fun to watch. Hopefully the media industry will learn something. If not well that just increases the chance of huge rewrite of copyright law (to shorter times, 5-20 years is range I can live with).

The EU change is for recordings and it's extended to 70years after publishing it. Authors have life + 70 years (they've been around longest so they managed to lobby up well). Movies are next for an extension so no worries there either.

EC is full of bought and payed by EMI and Vivendi so it's not surprising that they are talking up extended copyright like it was solution to all the worlds problems. (there is a reason why most normal people dislike EU and EC especially)

Originally posted by AxMi-24:The EU change is for recordings and it's extended to 70years after publishing it. Authors have life + 70 years (they've been around longest so they managed to lobby up well). Movies are next for an extension so no worries there either.

So basically we now have "life + children's life". As much as that is already ridiculous, any extension on that would be beyond absurd, and it would make it clear in anyone's mind this is not about this artist at all.

Originally posted by Brett Glass:Lessig is an egotistical hypocrite. His "Creative Commons" organization makes a big deal about the importance of copyright and the ability of artists to reserve certain rights in their work. But when HE copies someone else's work without permission, that's magically OK, because he's Larry Lessig.

This comment was edited by Brett Glass on April 30, 2009 05:20

When did you start trolling on issues other than network neutrality Brett? Is this a new hobby of yours, or did it recently begin to intersect your ISP business, or something else?

My only correction to this article would be to point out the reason for all of this trouble, "poorly considered DMCA".

The DMCA is the most poorly considered piece of legislation, from a citizenry point of view, I have seen in a long time, and it has been abused almost from the first day it was passed. However, the people who are primarily abusing it are the same people who control the major news outlets, thus the public seldom actually hears about it.

Quote from comment about Lessig: "He does believe in the importance of copyright. He reiterates that every chance he gets. But there needs to be a balance between copyright and the ability of the public to fairly use copyrighted content."

There is a huge difference between "fair use" and the "ability of the public to fairly use copyrighted content". "Fair use" refers mostly to educators, librarians, researchers, and reporters using copyrighted content not for commercial gain, but to provide a public good. There need only be small changes made to the "Fair Use" law to address certain issues that libraries and educational institutions rightfully desire.

Mr. Lessig's mashups may have a useful life of only a few months, but they walk a fine line between education and his own self promotion, which I argue could be commercial, for all practical purposes, as the exposure probably fills his pocket nicely with speaking engagements.

If your individual income depends on money received from creating original content, shouldn't you be entitled to the same benefits as General Mills derives for making Cheerios or any other commercial product?

My point: there are many families who rely on copyright to support them in their small business ventures. Let's not forget them when we fight against corporate abuse. They should be entitled to earn a living from their work for as long as they live. The corporations have the muscle to push people around, but let's not help them and destroy the livelihoods of everyday people by radically altering copyright laws.

See the previous article in this site that refers to the Google book settlement vs libraries and you'll see why it is wise to tread very carefully with regard to fooling with copyright laws.